Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and California's Prop 8 ban(6/26/13)

Shoutbox

January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018January 11, 2018, 06:31:04 am teppezuhodd says: That is the best technology we have nowOctober 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again! October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”﻿September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.htmlSeptember 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnessesSeptember 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;View Shout History

Right Turn has learned that an impressive array of Republicans and Gen. Stanley McChrystal will be filing an amicus brief on Friday in support of gay marriage with the Supreme Court in DeBoer v. Snyder. The case will decide, in the wake of cases striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, if states can restrict marriage to heterosexual couples or if gay marriage falls within the protection afforded by the 14th Amendment.

The brief’s signatories include former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, conservative pundits S.E. Cupp and Alex Castellanos, former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein, former Mitt Romney senior advisers Beth Myers and Carl Forti, conservative economists Doug Holtz-Eakin (formerly director of the Congressional Budget Office) and Greg Mankiw (formerly on the Council of Economic Advisers), former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), former homeland security adviser Fran Townsend and former Massachusetts state Senate minority leader Richard Tisei. The presence of an esteemed general suggests that there is no segment of society in which gay marriage is not gaining acceptance. There are on the list centrist Republicans, more libertarian figures and even social conservatives. In a phone interview Mehlman said, “I think the diversity of the people is a reflection of what we have seen which is increased support in every demographic [for gay marriage].”

In the brief, the signatories argue that they “have concluded that marriage is strengthened, and its value to society and to individual families and couples is promoted, by providing access to civil marriage for all American couples—heterosexual or gay or lesbian alike. In particular, civil marriage provides stability for the children of same-sex couples, the value of which cannot be overestimated. In light of these conclusions, amici believe that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from denying same-sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from the institution of civil marriage.” They argue that their belief in judicial restraint nevertheless is informed by their understanding that our “constitutional tradition empowers and requires the judiciary to protect our most cherished liberties against overreaching by the government, including overreach through an act of legislature or electorate. That principle, no less than our commitment to democratic self-government, is necessary to individual freedom and limited government.”

The signatories also argue from precedent that marriage is a fundamental right that enhances liberty. (“For those who choose to marry, the rights and responsibilities conveyed by civil marriage provide a bulwark against unwarranted government intervention into deeply personal concerns such as medical and child-rearing decisions.”) The brief contends, “It is precisely because marriage is so important in producing and protecting strong and stable family structures that the goal of strengthening families favors civil marriage for same-sex couples.” They make the case that even under the lowest level of 14th Amendment scrutiny, banning gay marriage cannot be defended:

Amici do not believe there is a legitimate, fact based justification for excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage. Over the past two decades, the arguments presented by proponents of such initiatives have been discredited by social science, rejected by courts, and contradicted by amici’s personal experience with same-sex couples, including those whose civil marriages have been legally performed and recognized in various States. Amici thus do not believe that any “reasonable support in fact” exists for arguments that allowing same-sex couples to join in civil marriage will damage or distort the institution, jeopardize children, or cause any other social ills. Rather, the facts and evidence show that permitting civil marriage for same sex couples will enhance the institution, protect children, and benefit society generally. Banning marriage for same-sex couples, in contrast, undermines these critical societal goals: Such bans impede family formation, harm children, and discourage fidelity, responsibility, and stability.

Put differently in layman’s terms, marriage confirms benefits and there are insufficient policy reasons to deprive gay couples of those benefits. Mehlman says, “The more people see gay couples getting married, the more they will see that marriage is a good thing.” With marriage, he says, “Freedom advances. Family values advance.” Mehlman thinks a decision in favor of gay marriage will be readily accepted. “I’ve noticed Republicans and conservatives respect the law,” he says of the reaction to previous cases. Indeed, it is remarkable how little discussion of gay marriage there has been in the presidential race. While potential candidates continue to voice their view that they “believe in traditional marriage,” many — including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Florida governor Jeb Bush — have all affirmed that they abide by court decisions. There is no real movement to defy the courts, and given the shift in opinions, it is nearly inconceivable that enough states could be induced to sign up for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Unlike abortion, which even proponents of abortion rights usually concede is a bad thing, gay marriage — no matter how its opponents might struggle — has not proved to be destructive or harmful in states where it has been adopted. The premise that gay marriage harms heterosexual marriage has never been very compelling. The longer Americans live with gay marriage, the less of an issue it seems to become. Americans remain a tolerant and accepting people. One strongly suspects that the court will agree with the signatories and thereby put the issue to rest as a legal matter. For many Americans, it is already a non-issue, and I agree with Mehlman that the rest will acknowledge once the court speaks that there is no turning the clock back.

The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered probate judges in the state to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

The ruling adds to the confusion surrounding gay marriage in the state. A federal judge found that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional in January. Some probate judges refused to comply with that ruling and Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore said that probate judges didn't have to follow it.

The conflicting orders prompted Elmore County Probate Judge John E. Enslen to ask for clarification from the Alabama Supreme Court, according to WBRC.

Read the Alabama Supreme Court's full decision here.

Below, more from The Associated Press:

Quote

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama Supreme Court is ordering the state's probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.The all-Republican court sided with a pair of conservative organizations Tuesday in ruling that the U.S. Constitution doesn't alter the judges' duty to administer state law.

The court says Alabama has defined marriage as between only one man and one woman for about 200 years. And it says a federal court used "sleight of hand" in a case that resulted in most of Alabama allowing gay marriage last month.

The Alabama Policy Institute and the Baptist-run Alabama Citizens Action Programasked the court to halt same-sex unions after a federal judge in Mobile said Alabama laws banning them were unconstitutional.

The Alabama Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the state's probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, saying a previous federal ruling that gay-marriage bans violate the U.S. Constitution does not preclude them from following state law, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

The all-Republican court sided with the argument offered by a pair of conservative organizations when they appealed a decision last month by U.S. District Judge Callie Granade of Mobile, who ruled that both Alabama's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

Six justices concurred in the 134-page opinion, which wasn't signed, but the court's most outspoken opponent of gay marriage, Chief Justice Roy Moore, recused himself.

Immediately after Granade's ruling, Moore told probate judges across the state they were not obliged to issue same-sex marriage licenses. His stance created widespread confusion, prompting some judges to refuse to issue the licenses and others to shut down their operations for all couples, gay and straight, until they could get a clear answer.

Justice Jim Main agreed with the result but said he has concerns about procedural aspects "of this highly unusual case."

In a dissent, Justice Greg Shaw said it was "unfortunate" that federal courts refused to delay gay marriage in the state until the U.S. Supreme Court could settle the issue nationally. But, Shaw said, the state Supreme Court doesn't have the power to consider the issue.

The court released the decision while Gov. Robert Bentley and most state leaders were assembled in Montgomery for the state of the state address. A spokeswoman for Bentley said the administration was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.

Joe Godfrey, executive director of the Alabama Citizens Action Program, said he was "very excited" about the decision blocking judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"We are concerned about the family and the danger that same-sex marriage will have. It will be a devastating blow to the family, which is already struggling," Godfrey said.

Godfrey said the decision will give "some stability" in Alabama until the U.S Supreme Court rules later this year. An attorney couples who filed suit to allow gay marriages said the court showed "callous disregard" in the decision and overstepped its bounds by declaring that Alabama's ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional, something the justices hadn't been asked to consider.

"It is deeply unfortunate that even as nationwide marriage equality is on the horizon, the Alabama Supreme Court is determined to be on the wrong side of history," said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The court's ruling Tuesday came in response to a request from the Alabama Policy Institute and the Baptist-run Alabama Citizens Action Program to halt same-sex unions after Granade's ruling.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Big business rallied behind the gay marriage cause on Thursday as the U.S. Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for April 28 on the contentious social issue that promises to yield one of the justices' most important rulings of 2015.

A total of 379 businesses and groups representing employers across various sectors, including Google Inc , American Airlines Group Inc , Goldman Sachs Group Inc and Johnson & Johnson , have signed on to a friend-of-the-court brief in support of gay marriage due to be filed later on Thursday.

The court must decide whether states have the right to ban gay marriage. The nine justices will hear an extended 2 1/2-hour argument in cases concerning same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.

The justices will consider whether same-sex marriage bans are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. A ruling is due by the end of June.

There are currently 37 states where gay marriage has been allowed to proceed, although a legal battle is ongoing in Alabama, with the state's top court putting it on hold.

The Supreme Court cases come two years after the high court set off a wave of pro-gay marriage lower-court rulings by invalidating a federal law that restricted benefits to heterosexual couples.

At the time of that June 2013 ruling, only 12 of the 50 states permitted gay marriage.

In the brief, lawyers with the Morgan Lewis law firm said that inconsistent state laws impose burdens on business and that marriage bans can conflict with corporate anti-discrimination and diversity policies.

"Allowing same-sex couples to marry improves employee morale and productivity, reduces uncertainty, and removes the wasteful administrative burdens imposed by the current disparity of state law treatment," the brief says.

Thomson Reuters Corp , which owns Reuters news, also signed on to the brief.

In an indication of the high interest in the matter, the court said it will release an audio recording of the oral arguments on the same day the case is heard. Normally, the court releases audio at the end of the week.

Over 300 Prominent Republicans Come Out of Closet in Support of Homosexual ‘Marriage’

Over 300 prominent Republicans have signed a brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court calling for the legalization of same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The amicus brief, or friend of the court brief, was led by former Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Ken Mehlman, who also served as manager of George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign.

“One of the points that I hope people appreciate when they read the brief is that supporting marriage equality is, in fact, the conservative position,” Mehlman told the Boston Globe.

The brief argues that the 14th Amendment requires equal protection, which means that homosexuals should be permitted then to marry each other.

“Although amici hold a broad spectrum of socially and politically conservative, moderate, and libertarian views, amici share the view that laws that bar same-sex couples from the institution of civil marriage, with all its attendant profoundly important rights and responsibilities, are inconsistent with the United States Constitution’s dual promises of equal protection and due process,” it reads.

Besides Mehlman, others who signed the brief include former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, retired U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, two aides to 2008 presidential candidate John McCain and his daughter Meghan, and several aides who served Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who ran for office in 2012.

Dan Blum, the 2011-2012 campaign manager for Scott Walker, U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, former U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio of New York, former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina and political commentator C.E. Cupp were also among the over 300 signees.

Connect with Christian News

As previously reported, in 2013, approximately 130 Republican leaders signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court expressing their support for same-sex “marriage” as the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was being deliberated by the nine justices on the bench.

Those signing at that time included include Stephen Hadley, former security adviser to George W. Bushormer justice department official James Coney, former commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez, and former Reagan budget director David Stockman. Former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, former Massachusetts governors William Weld and Jane Wift, and former California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman.

The list of signees grew to over 300 with this week’s submitted brief.

As previously reported, possible presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told the American Family Association (AFA) in October that if Republicans continue to give in on same-sex “marriage”, he—and other Christians—will leave the party.

“f the Republicans want to lose guys like me and a whole bunch of still God-fearing, Bible-believing people, go ahead and just abdicate on this issue, and go ahead and say abortion doesn’t matter, either. Because at that point, you lose me, I’m gone,” he declared. “I’ll become an independent. I’ll start finding people that have guts to stand. I’m tired of this.”

As previously reported, possible presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told the American Family Association (AFA) in October that if Republicans continue to give in on same-sex “marriage”, he—and other Christians—will leave the party.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma would stop issuing marriage licenses under legislation passed Tuesday afternoon by the Oklahoma House of Representatives.

House Bill 1125, by Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, would instead require those officiating marriage ceremonies to file after-the-fact “certificates of marriage” with court clerks’ offices. Alternatively, couples could file affidavits of common law marriage.

Russ said his bill is intended to “protect” county court clerks who do not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“This takes them out of the trap,” he said.

Somewhat ironically, the bill removes from statute language limiting marriage to one man and one woman. Other marriage restrictions would remain unchanged.

Opponents, most of them Democrats, said the bill would create a scenario in which Republicans will have legalized same-sex marriages even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the lower court rulings the bill seeks to counter.

Supporters of HB 1125 said it fittingly removes the state from the marriage process. “Marriage was not instituted by government,” said Rep. Dennis Johnson, R-Duncan. “It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage.”

Johnson did allow, however, that the state does have an interest in preventing such things as incest, polygamy and marriage of minors.

Minority Leader Scott Inman, D-Del City, and Rep. Emily Virgin, D-Norman, suggested that preventing those things might be harder to do under Russ’ proposal because court clerks would no longer be in position to require proof of identity and age.

The bill passed 67-24, with 10 members not voting, and now goes to the Senate.

Montgomery, AL - The Alabama Supreme Court has once again sided with Liberty Counsel in a historic case affirming natural marriage in the state. The Court’s new order directs Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, which Judge Davis had previously done under the order of U.S. District Judge Callie Granade when she purported to overturn Alabama’s marriage laws.

Oklahoma Bill would Abolish State’s Role in Granting Marriage Licenses, Leave It in Clergy Hands

In an effort to block the state’s involvement with gay marriage, the Oklahoma House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday (March 10) to abolish marriage licenses in the state.

The legislation, authored by Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, amends language in the state law that governs the responsibilities of court clerks. All references to marriage licenses were removed.

Russ said the intent of the bill is to protect court clerks caught between the federal and state governments. A federal appeals court overturned Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage last year. Russ, like many Republican legislators in the state, including Gov. Mary Fallin, believes the federal government overstepped its constitutional authority on this issue.

Acknowledging that his bill is partially in response to the federal court ruling, Russ told ABC News affiliate KSWO that the federal government lacks the power to “force its new definitions of what they believe on independent states.”

Russ said the federal government is attempting to change the traditional definition of marriage, so his legislation would place the responsibility for officiating marriages in the hands of clergy.

“Marriage was historically a religious covenant first and a government-recognized contract second,” Russ told The Oklahoman.

The legislation has sparked controversy, both in the Legislature and with groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Oklahoma Democrats are concerned that the legislation will lead to a “Pandora’s box” of issues, including polygamy, once the government’s authority to regulate marriage is removed.

Americans United released a statement opposing the bill, saying it is biased against same-sex couples and nontheists, including atheists. Russ has been unapologetic in defending his exclusion of nontheists from the right to marry.

“They don’t have a spiritual basis for a marriage and don’t want to have a clergy member or a priest or someone involved in the spiritual aspect,” Russ told KSWO, “then they can file an affidavit of common-law marriage.”

The bill would require court clerks to issue certificates of marriage signed by ordained clergy or affidavits of common-law marriage.

The Senate has not yet voted on the measure. Nor has Gov. Fallin indicated what she will do if the bill passes the Senate.

Make no mistake - all of this is scripted and by design...in order to create order out of chaos.

Born-again believers - PLEASE stick to the WORD OF GOD!

Psalms 63:7 Because thou hast been my help, therefore in the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice. Psa 63:8 My soul followeth hard after thee: thy right hand upholdeth me. Psa 63:9 But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth. Psa 63:10 They shall fall by the sword: they shall be a portion for foxes. Psa 63:11 But the king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped.

(Reuters) - The battle over gay marriage in Alabama heightened on Monday when a federal judge refused to stay her order to a county judge that he start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

U.S. District Judge Callie Granade said in a five-page order that Mobile County Probate Court Judge Don Davis must comply with her previous ruling, which found the state's gay marriage ban to be unconstitutional.

Alabama's all-Republican Supreme Court had contravened that ruling earlier this month. It ordered probate judges to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that the ban was constitutional.

The clashing court orders underscore the depth of opposition to gay marriage in socially conservative Alabama. The gay-marriage ban was passed in 2006 by 81 percent of voters.

But the administration of President Barack Obama, along with big business, have come out in support of gay marriage, and oral arguments are scheduled before the U.S. Supreme Court next month on the constitutionality of bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. That hearing comes two years after the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that restricted benefits to heterosexual couples. Since then, momentum has been building for gay marriages: they are now allowed in 36 states and the District of Columbia, up from 12 before the ruling.

Davis, in the face of the contradictory directives by a federal judge and the state Supreme Court, had halted issuing all marriage licenses, to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and asked Granade to stay her ruling. She declined.

"Although the court would agree that the developments in these same-sex marriage cases has at times seemed dizzying, the court finds that Judge Davis has not shown that a stay is warranted," Granade wrote in the order.

A South Carolina woman’s new essay about being raised by her lesbian mom contains a surprising revelation: she opposes marriage equality.

“Gay community, I am your daughter. My mom raised me with her same-sex partner back in the ’80s and ’90s,” writes Heather Barwick, a 31-year-old mother of four, in The Federalist. “I’m writing to you because I’m letting myself out of the closet: I don’t support gay marriage. But it might not be for the reasons that you think. It’s not because you’re gay. I love you, so much. It’s because of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself.”

Barwick, who also recently shared her story with the Christian publication World — and who signed onto a letter of support to designers Dolce & Gabbana following their controversial statements regarding gay and lesbian parents — would not speak with Yahoo Parenting. She replied to an interview request with the following message: “At the moment I’m unable to do an interview or further commenting on my letter.”

In her essay, she explains that when she was 2 or 3, her mother, who already knew that she was gay, left Barwick’s father to have a relationship with a woman. “Her partner treated me as if I was her own daughter,” she writes. “Along with my mom’s partner, I also inherited her tight-knit community of gay and lesbian friends.” Her father, meanwhile, “wasn’t a great guy,” and “didn’t bother coming around anymore.”

As she grew up with her loving mom and stepmom, Barwick writes, her family taught her “how to be brave,” have “empathy,” “how to listen,” and “how to stand up for myself, even if that means I stand alone.” And for a while — into her 20s — that meant being an advocate for gay marriage. But now she’s had a change of heart.

“Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not,” she writes. “A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting.My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom’s partner, but another mom could never have replaced the father I lost.”

But while her argument is heartfelt, note some gay-parenting supporters, it’s also full of holes.

“There’s nothing wrong with her sharing her experience — it’s an important conversation, and one that we have, and should have, all the time,” Gabriel Blau, executive director of the Family Equality Council, tells Yahoo Parenting. “But denying a huge swath of American citizens our civil rights is not an answer.”

Blau, who is raising a 7-year-old son with his husband, adds, “I think it’s disingenuous to say you don’t support LGBT rights and that your concern is children. Supporting marriage equality does not create our families — it creates support for families that already exist.” He adds that Barwick’s pain over the absence of a father “who chose not to be in the picture” and her conclusion to not support gay marriage represent two distinct issues, and that her connection of the two is “such a non-sequitur.”

Abigail Garner, an LGBT family-rights educator and author of the book “Families Like Mine: Children of Gay Parents Tell It Like It Is,” who was raised by two dads, is also confused by Barwick’s essay.

“Heather Barwick’s commentary mixes up several personal issues to offer a confusing argument that lacks logic,” she tells Yahoo Parenting. “It is true that some children of gay parents feel like they need to present their best public persona in order for their parents to be spared criticism, and I have written rather critically about the factors that create what I’ve referred to as ‘the pressure to be perfect.’”

But, Garner adds, “The next logical step in addressing that pressure, however, is certainly not to promote leaving these families in legal limbo by denying same-sex parents the right to marry. While I sympathize with Heather’s pain caused by being abandoned by her heterosexual father, her pain has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. We are all entitled to our personal narratives, but I strongly disagree with Heather’s contrived attempt to offer her personal story as a case for blocking other families’ access to marriage rights.”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As a historic constitutional showdown over gay marriage looms this month at the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys are fighting over another bitterly disputed issue: their fees.

The battles over billables are erupting far from the Washington, D.C., limelight, in lower courts from West Virginia to Wisconsin and Oklahoma. They pit lawyers representing gay couples who challenged same-sex marriage bans against the states that had enacted the laws.

Typically in the United States, each party pays its own lawyers. But under special laws designed to encourage civil rights cases against the government, parties who win can petition the county, state or other entity they sued for "reasonable” attorneys' fees and costs.

In some cases, the fee requests run well into seven figures and are submitted on behalf of powerful law firms that a Reuters examination found have outsized access to the Supreme Court. Individuals and advocacy groups that file lawsuits aimed at the high court sometimes retain big-firm lawyers who specialize in arguing in that forum and boast remarkable success rates in getting their cases heard.

Gay-marriage litigation, especially, has become a magnet for prominent lawyers and national firms with connections to the Supreme Court. These firms can bill at $1,000 an hour or more, and when they or other Supreme Court experts seek repayment from state coffers at even discounted rates, the rhetoric gets nasty.

“They used a howitzer to kill a gnat,” wrote Tulsa County, Oklahoma, in objecting to a $368,827 fee request in January. The local lawyer for the lesbian couple who brought the case had recruited a team that included a University of Oklahoma constitutional law professor who is a former Supreme Court law clerk and who billed at $400 per hour.

FACE TIME AT THE COURT

For the nation's most elite law firms, the appeal of these cases goes beyond racking up billable hours: Litigation seeking gay-marriage rights, which began with a steadily growing number of cases filed by couples across the country in the last decade, has offered the possibility of coveted face time before the Supreme Court.

As Reuters reported last year in a series called "The Echo Chamber," a rarefied group of eight lawyers accounted for almost 20 percent of all the arguments made before the court by attorneys in private practice during the past decade. A dozen firms were involved in a third of cases the court accepted, the report found.

Litigating on behalf of gay couples can also provide firms with a marketing tool for clients and an edge in recruiting. Many firms take these cases on a "pro bono" volunteer basis and promote their efforts on their websites. As Reuters reported last year, at least 30 of the country's largest firms were involved in some stage of gay-marriage litigation, either representing parties or submitting "friend-of-the-court" briefs, all in favor of broader rights.

For example, the state of Wisconsin in February objected to paying $980 per hour to a Chicago-based partner from the large Mayer Brown firm, one of the most successful at getting its cases heard by the high court.

Wisconsin called Mayer Brown's rates "stratospheric." The state also questioned why the fee request - made on behalf of Mayer Brown and lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, which had initiated the case - included more than a dozen attorneys in five offices across the country for a total of nearly $1.2 million. Wisconsin in late March agreed to pay $1,055,000.

The attorneys seeking fees in Wisconsin and in Oklahoma said their requests were fair. They cited the complexity of the issue and their expertise. The gay-marriage advocates in Wisconsin who retained Mayer Brown said they had been unable to persuade any large firms in their state to help them.

Wisconsin officials declined to comment. Mayer Brown declined to discuss the settlement, but said it considered the case a pro bono project and that it planned to turn over any fee award to the ACLU.

A 19TH-CENTURY PRINCIPLE

Many federal laws permitting the recovery of attorneys fees in civil rights cases trace back five decades. The principle that private lawyers should be encouraged to sue for unconstitutional government action dates back even further, to the era after the Civil War. In modern times, lawyers have relied on these laws to obtain fees in litigation ranging from racial equality matters to gun rights cases.

Fights over fees are not unique to same-sex marriage litigation and don't always involve big firms. In a case before a U.S. appeals court in Washington, D.C., the federal government is objecting to a $2 million fee claim from a lawyer who represented Shelby County, Alabama, in a case that led the Supreme Court to curtail the reach of voting rights law.

One of the biggest fee calculations in the gay-marriage litigation came from lawyers at the Gibson Dunn firm, including Theodore Olson, a former U.S. solicitor general who is among the top eight Supreme Court advocates identified by Reuters. Their tab: $1.7 million.

That figure emerged in a settlement agreement filed in January in U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Virginia. Olson and other Gibson Dunn lawyers said that they, together with a smaller firm, had spent close to 2,400 hours on their efforts to strike down that state's gay-marriage ban. Olson generally charges $1,800 an hour.

According to the settlement document, after weeks of negotiation, Gibson Dunn reduced both its hours and rates and agreed to take $459,000. Olson declined to comment.

In some cases, it is not known how much states are paying lawyers who win gay marriage cases. Earlier this year, Pennsylvania agreed in a confidential settlement to pay $1.5 million to lawyers who had challenged its gay-marriage ban. Reuters learned of that deal through a filing in a separate case. The $1.5 million payment was confirmed this week by the Pennsylvania governor's office.

The fee disputes stem largely from cases started after the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor favoring gay rights. In most of these cases, gay-marriage advocates prevailed as lower-court judges struck down state bans. The case currently before the Supreme Court stems from same-sex marriage prohibitions in four Midwestern states that were upheld by a federal appeals court.

Known as Obergefell v. Hodges, one of the four consolidated cases, the Supreme Court dispute tests two questions: whether the Constitution's equality guarantee covers a right to same-sex marriage, and if not, whether states that ban such unions must recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

Gay-marriage advocates are arguing for a nationwide right to get married. Currently, 37 states of the 50 states and the District of Columbia allow it. The 13 states still prohibiting such unions are in mainly in the South and Midwest. The states that will defend their bans before the Supreme Court on April 28 are Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week on the question of whether the Constitution allows states to ban same-sex marriages. Whatever it decides, there seems little doubt that the U.S. is moving rapidly toward allowing such marriages, and with remarkably little public controversy. Contrast this with the issue of abortion, which has split the nation for 40 years (and counting).

Why the difference? There are three standard answers.

The Supreme Court ruined everything. A forgotten bit of history is that in the seven years before the court decided Roe v. Wade (1973), a significant NUMBER of states liberalized their abortion laws. Four, including New York, repealed them altogether. Thirteen others changed them to allow abortion when the pregnant woman’s health was endangered, and also in cases of ****, incest and fetal deformity. So, in the years before Roe, the number of legal abortions surged. The pro-choice trend was unmistakable, and was facing only limited controversy.

Some people believe that by suddenly declaring abortion to be a constitutional right, the court galvanized the pro-life movement and polarized the nation. ACCORDING to this view, the court’s premature involvement truncated a healthy democratic debate, and it was the arrogance of an activist court that produced the divisions of the past 40 years, and the energy and success of the pro-life movement.

If that's right, then the current court should perhaps be warned: A ruling this year that states must recognize same-sex marriage could provoke a backlash that wouldn't occur if democratic processes were allowed TO PLAY out.

The moral issues are fundamentally different. To many people, abortion is a grave moral wrong, because it involves the intentional killing of a living creature legitimately described as a person (perhaps from the point of conception, perhaps at some later stage). The most obvious justification for restricting people’s freedom is to prevent harm to others. When states PROTECT life, they prevent that harm.

It's a lot harder to say the same about bans on same-sex marriages. True, some of those who oppose such marriages contend that they cause harm -- for example, to children or to opposite-sex couples. But they struggle mightily to make those arguments convincing.

ACCORDING to this view, the controversy over same-sex marriage is quieter because the moral issues are easier.

It’s the social movements, stupid. Everyone knows that, in recent years, an energetic social movement has been working to legitimize same-sex marriage. While some of this work has involved constitutional arguments, most of it has been political -- the repetition of a simple question, illustrated with human faces: Why should some people -- YOUR brothers, sisters, children and friends -- be denied access to the defining institution of marriage?

Although many people strongly oppose same-sex marriage, and are willing to give time and MONEY to ban it, they haven't really created a social movement.

Things are different in the context of abortion: Both pro-life and pro-choice movements have been energized and amply funded for decades -- and their opposition both reflects and helps to perpetuate national polarization.

Which of the three explanations is right? The third one is the strongest. But the three actually work a lot better together than separately. Roe v. Wade did energize the pro-life movement, and no social movement can succeed unless people believe that it has a strong moral foundation.

One implication is clear: Same-sex marriages are unlikely to produce anything like the social divisions associated with abortion. Opponents of such marriages have a hard time identifying concrete social harms. And in the U.S., it’s pretty hard to MOBILIZE one’s fellow citizens without them.

LOS ANGELES — The number of legally married same-sex couples in the United States has tripled in the last year, according to a new poll released today by Gallup that was co-authored by Gary J. Gates, Blachford-Cooper Distinguished Scholar and Research Director at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, and Frank Newport, editor in chief of Gallup.The new estimate suggests that 390,000 out of nearly 1 million same-sex couples in the U.S. are married. Estimates from the 2013 National Health Interview SURVEY had the figure at 130,000.

"As the Supreme Court considers on Tuesday if same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, these data demonstrate that marriage is already widespread among same-sex couples," said Gates. "In the last year alone, estimates suggest that more than a quarter million of the 390,000 married same-sex couples in this country got married as state bans on such marriages were lifted across the nation. Even so, about one in six married same-sex couples live in states that currently don't recognize their marriage."

Findings from the poll also show that 60,000 married same-sex couples live in the 13 states that do not allow same-sex couples to marry.

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted from January to April 2015 on the Gallup U.S. Daily SURVEY. The study included a random sample of 80,568 adults ages 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Advocates on both sides of the gay marriage issue prepared Sunday for HIGH NOON — at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

At that hour, perhaps the nation’s most contentious political issue will get its day in court, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in four cases that gay marriage advocates say will go down in HISTORY as landmarks of anti-discrimination law.

Competing rallies have been planned outside the high court Tuesday morning. More than a dozen people had ALREADY started camping out on the sidewalk near the court by Saturday morning in hopes of getting one of the coveted public seats for the 2-hour hearing.

SEE ALSO: Supreme Court gay marriage cases: What to expect

At issue in the cases are whether the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and whether states are required to recognize marriages conducted by other jurisdictions.

Dozens of gay couples from Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio and Kentucky are urging the court to AGREE that they have a fundamental right to marriage — and many attorneys and gay rights advocates believe they have the upper hand in the contest.

“If you read what the Supreme Court said” in a 2013 gay marriage case, Windsor v. United States, “there’s really no other way for the Supreme Court to come out in the case that’s up for argument on Tuesday,” lawyer Ted Olson said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

They said they believe at least five of the nine justices are in favor of sanctioning same-sex marriage.

However, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, called the court’s thinking on the issue “a little bit unpredictable.”

“I think they could CONTINUE to give some deference to the states, but I do think we’ll probably have to clearly recognize what happens in another state,” Mr. Hutchinson said on “Meet the Press.”

The Supreme Court has affirmed that states have the constitutional right to create marriage policies — which is why it struck down the federal government’s Defense of Marriage Act in the 2013 Windsor case, Gene Schaerr, former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, told a recent briefing at the Family Research Council.

The Defense of Marriage Act was overturned precisely because it overrode states’ rights in domestic policies, he explained. It would be “a monumental act of judicial hypocrisy” for the high court to “turn Windsor around” and force states to adopt same-sex marriage.

The high court needs to “stick with” the logic of Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton’s majority opinion for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Caleb Dalton, litigation counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, said at a briefing at ADF offices Friday.

Moreover, if the high court AGREES that the cases deserve only rational-basis review, states can show they have multiple, legitimate reasons to keep marriage laws as the union of one man and one woman, Mr. Dalton said.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on Tuesday (April 28) that could wind up legalizing gay marriage nationwide, dozens of Christian leaders have issued a call to civil authorities to preserve “the unique meaning of marriage in the law” — but also to “protect the rights of those with differing views of marriage.”

The open letter “to all in positions of public service,” released Thursday (April 23), seems to reflect a growing recognition by same-sex marriage foes that they may be on the losing side of the legal battle to bar gay marriage and need to broaden their focus to securing protections for believers.

Gay marriage opponents are also losing the battle for the hearts and minds of their own flocks: Polls show that American believers, like the rest of the public, are growing much more accepting of same-sex relationships, or at least much less inclined to invest time or resources into waging the fight against legalizing gay marriage.

This week’s statement, “The Defense of Marriage and the Right of Religious Freedom: Reaffirming a Shared Witness,” was signed by 35 religious leaders representing Catholic, evangelical, Pentecostal, Orthodox and Mormon churches. The only non-Christian signatory was Imam Faizul Khan of the Islamic Society of Washington Area.

The leaders forcefully reiterate their shared belief that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman” and argue that apart from religious doctrines, the state “has a compelling interest in maintaining marriage” for the good of society and the “well-being of children.”

But they add that “this commitment is inseparable from affirming the equal dignity of all people and the necessity of protecting their basic rights” if, for example, the high court rules that all states must recognize gay marriage.

“No person or community, including religious organizations and individuals of faith, should be forced to accept this redefinition,” they write. “Government should protect the rights of those with differing views of marriage to express their beliefs and convictions without fear of intimidation, marginalization or unwarranted charges that their values imply hostility, animosity, or hatred of others.”

Arguments over how or whether believers must accommodate gay people have become a flashpoint in the culture wars and a source of political and legislative debates.

That was vividly demonstrated earlier this month when owners of an Indiana pizzeria who announced they would not cater a gay wedding because of their Christian belief became the focus of threats, and a rallying point for opponents of gay rights.

The state legislature later amended the religious freedom law that the pizzeria cited to make it clear the law could not be used to discriminate. A religious freedom law in Arkansas went through a similar revision. Both steps were seen as defeats for religious freedom advocates, even though Republicans deemed friendly to the cause were in power in both states.

Increasingly, some have been pointing toward a new law in Utah as an example of where religious freedom champions should put their energies. That law, passed in March in a deeply conservative state with the support of Mormon leaders, grants statewide protections against housing and employment discrimination for gay and lesbians as long as those measures safeguard religious freedom.

Among the statement signers are: Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America; the Rev. Matthew Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; the Rev. Eugene F. Rivers, III, president of the Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies; George O. Wood, general superintendent of the Assemblies of God; and Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s arguments on Tuesday over same-sex marriage will cap more than two decades of litigation and a transformation in public attitudes. Based on the court’s actions during the past two years, a sense of inevitability is in the air: That a majority is on the verge of declaring gay marriage legal nationwide. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s pivotal member on gay rights, has been marching in this direction with opinions dating to 1996. In his most recent gay rights decision for the court in 2013, rejecting a legal definition of marriage limited to a man and woman for purposes of federal benefits, Kennedy deplored that U.S. law for making gay marriages “unequal.” That 5-4 decision did not address a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but lower court judges interpreted the ruling as an endorsement of it and began invalidating state bans.

That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.

The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio.

“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.

He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.”

“You are essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need moms and dads – that moms and dads are irrelevant,” Staver said. “Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t matter and that two moms or two dads are absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.”

Dobson said the legalization of same-sex marriage could fracture the nation.

“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”

And that means the possibility of Christians – people of faith – engaging in acts of civil disobedience.

That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.

“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”

Scarborough said the pledge was meant to be forthright and clear.

“We’re facing a real Constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules adversely from our perspective on same-sex marriage,” he told me. For me there’s no option. I’m going to choose to serve the Lord. And I think that thousands of other pastors will take that position and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of Christians.”

Scarborough is urging pastors across the nation to sign the pledge.

He referenced the “outrageous penalties” being assessed against people of faith simply because they don’t want to participate in a same-sex union.

An Oregon bakery is facing a $135,000 fine for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and a Washington State florist faces fines for refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

“Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to,” he said. “Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. ... What will we do, and how will we respond?”

Dobson said there’s no doubt that LGBT activists are targeting Christian business owners.

“For about 50 years the homosexual community has had as its goal to change the culture, to change the ideology and if necessary – to force people who don’t agree by use of the courts,” Dobson told me. “I think there’s a collision here and we can all see it and where it’s going to go is anybody’s guess – but it is serious.”

To be clear – the men and women who courageously signed this pledge did so knowing the hell storm that is about to be unleashed on them – and their families.

American Jacobins: Sexual Revolutionaries Prepare the Battlespace for a De-Christianized America

In yesterday’s oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges (better known as the “gay-marriage case”), the solicitor general of the United States committed a classic “Kinsley gaffe”: He accidentally told the truth. Normally, in any argument about the next legal step of the sexual revolution, the accusation or even implication that there’s a slippery slope is grounds for outrage. Not only shouldn’t we explore the legal implications of expanding the definition of marriage, the very attempt is homophobic. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Yesterday, however, the solicitor general tugged at that curtain, revealing the Jacobin behind — a nonviolent version, of course, but a Jacobin nonetheless. It turns out that the sexual revolution — like the French Revolution — demands “de-Christianization.”

Here is the revealing exchange, widely reported yesterday:

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax­ exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I ­­ I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I ­­ I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that,

Justice Alito. It is ­­ it is going to be an issue.

Those unfamiliar with the Bob Jones case or the law applicable to tax exemptions may not understand the full magnitude of that statement.

Tax exemptions are widely available and routinely granted, provided the exempt organization falls within the language and meaning of the statute. Here’s how the IRS describes the scope of the tax exemption: The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

The Bob Jones case, however, held that even if an entity fell within enumerated statutory categories — i.e., both religious and educational — the IRS could still lawfully withhold the tax exemption if the entity did not “serve a public purpose” and was “contrary to established public policy.” In other words, if the IRS could make a supportable finding that the tax-exempt entity was — in essence — harmful to civil society, it could withhold the exemption no matter the designated purpose of the organization. In Bob Jones, the Court found that explicit racial discrimination (bans on interracial relationships) meant that the college was not truly “charitable” and thus could not receive an exemption.

Thus, to be clear, the solicitor general said it was “going to be an issue” whether a religious college that upholds orthodox Christian teachings on marriage and sexuality could even be considered “charitable.” That a solicitor general could even raise the question represents a sea change in American political culture, potentially placing the government in a state of overt declared hostility against the most basic elements of orthodox faith.

But it’s worse than mere opposition. As the French revolutionaries learned, you can’t replace something with nothing. Thus, the revolutionary ideals themselves must be rendered sacred. In France, that meant the Cult of Reason or — if you weren’t willing to kick faith entirely to the curb — the Cult of the Supreme Being. Here, we’ve created the Cult of Sexual Autonomy, and this is its statement of faith from Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote in Obergefell: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Members of the Supreme Court are not philosopher-kings, and it’s safe to say that millions upon millions of citizens do not believe that such radical individualism is at the “heart of liberty.” Indeed, one of the great accomplishments of the American Revolution was the creation of a state that allowed people of all faiths, of no faith, and of radically divergent views of liberty to carve out a place in a new nation, sustain their own thriving communities of shared purpose, and live largely free of concern that the state would move to suppress or silence your faith and viewpoint.

In 1983, in the Bob Jones case, the Supreme Court made a limited exception to that general principle — as part of the ongoing attempt to eradicate the vestiges of our nation’s greatest moral error and its greatest physical crisis. To even begin to compare orthodox beliefs about marriage to the legacy of chattel slavery, Jim Crow, and a ruinous Civil War is to utterly take leave of any sense of moral proportion.

But the Jacobin advances the revolution by any means — and through any reasoning — necessary. To the Jacobin, you are either a revolutionary or an enemy, and no lesser light than the federal government’s chief constitutional advocate has now raised the specter of a legal regime far worse than “separation of church and state.” For the sexual revolutionaries, it’s the state against the church.

Washington (AFP) - Support for same-sex marriage in the United States is at an all-time high of 60 percent, a new poll showed Tuesday as the Supreme Court gears up to weigh in on the issue.

The rate of support rose five percent from last year, and is at its highest since surveys began to address the matter in 1996, pollsters Gallup said in a statement.

A majority of Americans first supported legal marriage for gays and lesbians for the first time in 2011, Gallup said; since then, the number has steadily risen.

"Support for the legality of gay marriages in the US has been a fast-changing trend. Just two decades ago, only 27% of Americans backed gay marriage, while 68% opposed," Gallup said.

But "by 2005, the percentage in favor had increased by 10 points to 37%, and by 2010 it had reached 44%."

The US Supreme Court is due to rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in a month, a landmark ruling which could settle once and for all legal questions surrounding marriage for lesbians and gays.

In the US federal system, 37 out of 50 states, plus the capital Washington, DC, already allow same-sex marriage. Other states do not allow it, and do not recognize those marriages from other US states.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated a same-sex “wedding” last weekend as the nation’s high court deliberates a monumental case that will decide states’ rights regarding the definition of marriage.

Ginsburg wore her traditional black robe and lace collar as she presided over the ceremony of Michael Kahn and Charles Mitchem. According to reports, Ginsburg put an emphasis on the word “Constitution” as she declared that she was uniting them under the “powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.”

“No one was sure if she was highlighting her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case under consideration by the Supreme Court that could determine whether same-sex marriage is constitutional,” wrote New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.

As previously reported, Ginsburg, nominated to the bench by Bill Clinton, officiated a ceremony in 2013, where she presided over an event for Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and his partner John Roberts.

“I think it will be one more statement that people who love each other and want to live together should be able to enjoy the blessings and the strife in the marriage relationship,” she said prior to the occasion, according to the Washington Post.

But as a result of her involvement and outspokenness on the matter, some called for Ginsburg to recuse herself from the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which she has not done.

The Foundation for Moral Law in Montgomery, Alabama, led by the wife of “Ten Commandments judge” Roy Moore, filed a motion last month asking for both Ginsburg and Elena Kagan—who likewise has officiated a ceremony—to excuse themselves from the case. It noted that 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) requires that a justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Connect with Christian News

“Common sense dictates that one who has performed same-sex marriages cannot objectively rule on their legality,” President Kayla Moore stated. “If these justices participate in this case, the court’s decision will forever be questioned as being based on their personal feelings rather than on the Constitution itself.”

During oral argument last month, Ginsburg suggested that the definition of marriage has evolved over time.

“We have changed our idea about marriage,” she said. “Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female.”

“[Y]ou wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible,” Ginsburg stated. “Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was a marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the people would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.”

But other judges expressed a hesitancy to change the definition for one particular type of relationship.

“This definition has been with us for millennia,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy. “And it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, well, we know better.’”

The Alabama Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that would fundamentally alter the state’s approach to the institution of marriage. The bill—passed 22-3 by the senate and now heading for the house—would scrap marriage licenses and replace them with marriage contracts that do not require a marriage ceremony for validity. The move is being interpreted as an end-around to what many suspect will be a pro-gay marriage Supreme Court ruling.

The bill, SB377, ends the issuance of marriage certificates, instead requiring a contract filed with a probate judge. "Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein," the bill states.

WHNT19 News cites attorney Jake Watson, who said the bill would fundamentally change the way the state has handled marriage for over a century.

"It really does away with the traditional sense of a marriage certificate and what we’ve been dealing with in Alabama as far as marriage certificates for more than a hundred years, I believe," said Watson.

The potential problem, he argued, is that the state would retain the right to define who is legally allowed to receive a contract.

"A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married, that’s going to be the catch," he said. "What is legally authorized to be married? Under the State of Alabama Law, that would not include same-sex marriage."

Though the move might seem like an exercise in semantics, it could provide Alabama some legal basis for continuing to define marriage even with a national mandate for gay marriage licenses, likely requiring further court action to overrule. But the law is also a potential first step toward states getting out of the marriage business altogether, a direction some on the right have begun to champion more and more.

'If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it'

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on SCOTUS ruling: 'The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.'

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on SCOTUS ruling: 'The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that. This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision.'

And Jindal's a Roman Catholic - I wonder why he hasn't called out his Roman Catholic buddy Anthony Kennedy(who provided the swing vote).

As for Roberts - he buddies with Obamacare and trampled the Constitution, he needs to stay quiet.

My wife called me on my lunch break to tell me the news. We're so close now, is all I can say. America's fate is sealed at this point, too. The most powerful country in the world adopts this new sin to its portfolio? To go along with child sacrifice and all the other ungodly things that happen here? America's fate is sealed.

Photo: Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez, who is openly gay, reacts to SCOTUS ruling at local records office: 'I've known all along I was a decent human being, but today it was validated by the federal government' - @melissa_repko

this how they think.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.